HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gromet, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gromet, M. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Comparison of Computer-Aided Detection to Double Reading of Screening Mammograms: Review of 231,221 Mammograms

¹ Breast Imaging Section, Charlotte Radiology, P.A., 1701 East Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28203.

OBJECTIVE. This study compares the efficacy of single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) to double reading and also to the first reader (without CAD) in a double-reading program.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. A review was performed of 231,221 screening mammograms interpreted by experienced mammographers from 2001 through 2005 in a community-based mammography program. In 112,413 (48.6%), mammographers performed the first of two readings. In 118,808 (51.4%), they performed a single reading aided by CAD.

RESULTS. For double reading, the first reader's recall rate was 10.2%; sensitivity, 81.4%; positive predictive value, as a percentage of positive screening mammograms resulting in a tissue diagnosis of cancer within 1 year (PPV₁), 4.1%; and cancer detection rate, 4.12 per 1,000. After the double-reading process, the final recall rate was 11.9%; sensitivity, 88.0%; PPV₁, 3.7%; and cancer detection rate, 4.46 per 1,000. For single-reading with CAD, the recall rate was 10.6%; sensitivity, 90.4%; PPV₁, 3.9%; and cancer detection rate, 4.20 per 1,000. Statistically significant results included a lower recall rate with CAD compared with double reading (10.6% vs 11.9%, respectively; p < 0.0001); increased sensitivity with CAD compared with the first reader (90.4% vs 81.4%, p < 0.0001); and increased recall rate with CAD compared with the first reader (10.6% vs 10.2%, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION. Double reading increased sensitivity with a modest increase in the recall rate compared with single reading. Single reading with CAD, compared with double reading, resulted in a small, but not statistically significant, increase in sensitivity with a lower recall rate. Our results indicate that CAD enhances performance of a single reader, yielding increased sensitivity with only a small increase in recall rate.

Keywords: breast cancer • computer-aided detection • CAD • double reading • mammography • screening mammography

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. L. Birdwell The Preponderance of Evidence Supports Computer-aided Detection for Screening Mammography Radiology, October 1, 2009; 253(1): 9 - 16. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. E. Philpotts Can Computer-aided Detection Be Detrimental to Mammographic Interpretation? Radiology, October 1, 2009; 253(1): 17 - 22. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J. Fenton, P. Green, and L.-M. Baldwin Internal Validation of Procedure Codes on Medicare Claims for Digital Mammograms and Computer-Aided Detection Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., August 1, 2009; 18(8): 2186 - 2189. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. M. Nishikawa and L. L. Pesce Computer-aided Detection Evaluation Methods Are Not Created Equal Radiology, June 1, 2009; 251(3): 634 - 636. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Sadik, M. Suurkula, P. Hoglund, A. Jarund, and L. Edenbrandt Improved Classifications of Planar Whole-Body Bone Scans Using a Computer-Assisted Diagnosis System: A Multicenter, Multiple-Reader, Multiple-Case Study J. Nucl. Med., March 1, 2009; 50(3): 368 - 375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. F. Dick III, T. H. Gallagher, R. J. Brenner, J. P. Yi, L. M. Reisch, L. Abraham, D. L. Miglioretti, P. A. Carney, G. R. Cutter, and J. G. Elmore Predictors of Radiologists' Perceived Risk of Malpractice Lawsuits in Breast Imaging Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2009; 192(2): 327 - 333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. L. Ellis Performance Parameters for Mammography Screening Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2008; 191(5): W204 - W204. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Gromet Reply Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2008; 191(5): W205 - W205. [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. J. Gilbert, S. M. Astley, M. G.C. Gillan, O. F. Agbaje, M. G. Wallis, J. James, C. R.M. Boggis, S. W. Duffy, and the CADET II Group Single Reading with Computer-Aided Detection for Screening Mammography N. Engl. J. Med., October 16, 2008; 359(16): 1675 - 1684. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]